A Mead Project source page

Originally published as:

Leonard Dupee White. "The Experiment"
In Leonard
D. White, The Prestige Value of Public Employment in Chicago: An Experimental
Study . Chicago: University of Chicago (1929): 1 - 24.

Editors' notes

This document is presented as part of the history
of attitude scaling. White's research was one of Thurstone's early projects in
attitude scaling. The tools used in this study appear to derive from several
sources. For example, Rice's multiple choice format using what is now thought of
as a "Likert-style" response format is paired with Allport's linear rating
of "certainty"

Site Navigation

The Prestige Value of Public Employment in Chicago:Chapter I: The Experiment

Leonard D. White

1. INTRODUCTION

In the course of an earlier study of public employment in Chicago,[1]
I became convinced that the morale of thousands of city employees and officials
was deeply affected by their conception of what the public thinks about them.
Again and again complaints were made that "people don't understand or appreciate
what we are doing," or "people think we are a bunch of loafers or crooks," or "we
never get any notice in the newspapers except when something goes wrong."

An individual's conception of the value of his work is profoundly affected by
what others think of it, and by what he thinks others think of it. It is
theoretically clear that scales of social values varying from group to group are
attached to different callings and professions. A profession presumably commands
a greater recognition or prestige than an occupation; organized occupations,
greater prestige than unorganized; and within each of these large divisions
subordinate scales of values undoubtedly exist.

These scales of values tend to sustain each individual's view of his place in
society, and, generally speaking, each seeks employment, within a range
circumscribed by interests, abilities, and opportunities, where the prestige
value is greatest. Thus an elevator man prefers to operate a lift at the
University of Chicago because he values the privilege of being associated with
the University. He can

(2) boast of knowing such and such a "professor," and he acquires a
subtle, even though slight, standing just because he works in a building of
unusual dignity and beauty.

The major presumption of the present study may be put in general terms in
something like the following statement. The morale (and hence in part the
efficiency) of any group is affected by the group's conception of its social
evaluation. This presumption is not subjected to proof in the following pages,
but is adopted forthwith as an axiom whose implications with regard to a
specific group, the employees and officials of the city of Chicago, are
examined.

If this proposition be accepted for the purpose of this study, it becomes
important to inquire into the social evaluation of public employment in Chicago.
It flows from the presumption of the preceding paragraph that if the prestige
value of a city-hall job is high, that fact alone will tend to stimulate a
desirable type of young man and woman to enter the service, to maintain a
self-respecting ideal of conduct within the service, and to energize a constant
effort to make the real correspond to the ideal conception of public service.
If, on the other hand, the prestige value of a city-hall job is low, that fact
alone has a tendency to discourage the best-equipped young people to seek
employment there, as well as to exercise a subtle, disintegrating influence on
the standards of those who are in the city service.

The analysis of the psychological environment of public employment in Chicago
therefore becomes the direct object of the present inquiry. We desire to know
whether the psychological matrix surrounding public employment is favorable or
unfavorable; we seek a mathematical statement of the degree of its plus or
negative quality; we are interested in the differentials which appear in the
opinions

(3) of selected groups of Chicago citizens, whether by sex, race, age,
education, occupation, or economic status; and, finally, we are interested in
specific opinions on selected phases of public employment which accompany and
indeed comprise the total psychological complex.

II. THE METHOD OF THE STUDY: THE FIRST SCHEDULE

A social attitude toward public employment may be favorable, neutral, or
unfavorable in varying degrees. In any case it is laid open for investigation by
discovering the proportion of individual preferences for an official position
when compared with an unofficial position of substantially equivalent character.
If we ask one hundred representative persons whether they feel a higher esteem
for an electrical engineer employed by the Western Electric Company or for an
electrical engineer employed by the city of Chicago at the same salary and with
similar duties, we se-cure responses which can be dealt with quite concretely.
Theoretically, any range of opinion might emerge, from one hundred preferences
for the position with the Western Electric Company to one hundred preferences
for the position with the city of Chicago.

Theoretically, if each class of city positions was thus explored something
would be learned of the content of the public mind with regard to the whole
range of public employment. Actually this could not be done, and the process of
sampling was resorted to by selecting twenty characteristic occupations,
representing a considerable proportion of the total range of public employment.
The nature of this sample will be discussed shortly.

Theoretically, also, each resident of Chicago should be invited to express
his opinion of the relative prestige values of each position, or of the selected
positions. This again

(4) would have imposed an impossible task, and the process of sampling was
again resorted to. Ultimately 4,680 residents of Chicago expressed an opinion to
our interviewers and were recorded on the schedule described below. The nature
of the population sample will also be described be-low, but it may be stated
here that none of the subjects were city-hall employees.

Two schedules were devised, of which the first contained two parts. The first
section presented twenty paired occupations; the second part proposed fifteen
questions concerning the relative merits of public and private employment, and
invited certain personal data. This schedule is reproduced herewith. The second,
or supplementary schedule, provided a word-association test, a rating scale for
the twenty occupations as against each other, and three rating scales to test
opinion as to courtesy, honesty, and efficiency of city employees. It is
reproduced on page 13.

SCHEDULE 1
EMPLOYMENT STUDY

The following pairs of occupations are intended to be substantially
equivalent as to salary and duties.

Check (√ ) in each pair the occupation for which you have the
higher esteem.

Consider each pair as a unit without reference to other pairs, and deal with
it before considering the next pair.

The first sheet presents twenty paired occupations, one of which in each case
is public, the other private. In the latter case the position was associated
with the name of some well-known large-scale Chicago corporation or enterprise;
the effort was to eliminate any differential owing to the wider acquaintance of
citizens with the city as such. Marshall Field and Company, the Commonwealth
Edison Company, the Western Electric Company, the People's Gas Light and Coke
Company, the Yellow Cab Company, the Illinois Bell Telephone Company, and the
Wrigley Building are almost as universally known as the city government, or the
city and county building. The other private corporations are all widely known in
Chicago.

The positions in each pair were stated, both in print and orally, to be
substantially equivalent as to salary and duties. The intent was to focus
attention on the single variable of the public or private character of the
position

(8) and the degree of esteem or prestige associated therewith. Parity of
salaries and duties was sometimes questioned, and in some cases choices were
definitely made on the view that the city-hall position actually paid more, or
less, than the private position. Both views were taken; in what pro-portions is
not known. But on the whole it is believed that the subject accepted the
instructions that the positions were substantially identical in pay and duties,
and that the departures from this view tended to neutralize each other.

The range of occupations given in the twenty pairs was the subject of long
and careful attention. A preliminary list of about eighty pairs was compiled by
the writer with the aid of a research assistant and a group of graduate
students. This list was reduced to about thirty, and was presented to members of
the Department of Political Science for criticism, as a result of which others
were added, and the total then reduced to twenty. This list was then criticized
by informed persons outside the University and the final selection made.

The final choice was governed by (1) a desire to secure representative and
characteristic positions in the public service; (2) a desire to secure positions
which would be familiar to most residents of the city; (3) a desire to secure a
wide range of positions, from the humble to the important, from labor through
clerical to technical, professional, and scientific positions, from routine to
supervisory posts, from indoor to outdoor occupations; (4) a desire to choose
positions for which a real equivalent could be found in non-public work; and (5)
a desire to secure positions which so far as could be foreseen would probably
call forth differences in esteem.

The second part of this schedule introduced a series of fifteen questions
intended (1) to reveal general opinion

(9) about and personal experience with public officials and employees
(questions 8 and 9), and (2) to reveal opinions on some of the significant bases
of judgment of public employment, such as courtesy, competence, integrity,
industry, partiality, ambition, opportunity, publicity value, experience value,
permanence, influence, working conditions, and the recognition of merit. It was
recognized that subjects would be unable to express an opinion with reference to
some of these questions, and in each case opportunity was given to make a
non-committal response.

Instead of using these fifteen specific questions, the search for opinion
might have been left open to the interviewer, requesting him in each case to
explore the mind of the subject by relevant question and answer. After some
consideration this method was abandoned for fear the interviewer would soon
build up a pattern into which, perhaps unconsciously, would be fitted the
responses made to him. We might also have proceeded by requesting each subject
to write his opinion at such length as he desired. This would probably have
resulted in some illuminating points of view, but would have given no material
which could be handled statistically.

The questions were selected after conference with members of the Department
of Political Science on the basis of their combined experience and judgment as
to what would be most significant. Other significant criteria may well exist
which this study does not deal with.

The last section of the second part of this schedule was designed to secure
personal data which was thought likely to reveal significant differentials. Item
9, "Years residence in Illinois," was omitted in favor of item 10; item 11,
"Read English," was discarded. Originally it was thought probable that the
questionnaire would be translated into

(10) the foreign languages of major importance but this plan was abandoned
for lack of resources. The only item which gave trouble was rent per room per
month. Many refused to divulge this information, and so many variations
developed that the answers have to be treated with great care. The method of
handling is discussed in chapter viii and, in general, detailed analysis of each
item is discussed in the appropriate succeeding chapter.

The schedules were filled in each case under the immediate personal
supervision of an interviewer. The instructions issued to the interviewers are
reprinted in the following paragraphs.

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INTERVIEWERS

1.
Make careful preparation for each interview,
securing an appointment where possible and indicating that about twenty minutes'
time will be consumed.

2.
Assure the subject that his responses are
confidential, that he is not requested to give his name, and that it is
impossible to identify the papers. State that the study is of a scientific
character and there are no ulterior ends to be served.

3.
Do not inform the subject of the purpose of the
study. It is important that he does not grasp the contrast between public and
private employment until he is dealing with the paired groups. A general
statement indicating that this is a phase of a study connected with vocational
guidance or employment may be used to put the subject off his guard. You should
say as little as possible until all the in-formation has been secured.

4.
Repeat orally the printed instructions before
handing the subject the sheet, emphasizing the basis of selection, using such
phrases as "In which position would you prefer your friends to see you?" "Which do
you think has greater prestige?" or "In which would you prefer your son or
daughter to engage?"

5.
Insist upon a choice in each case even though the
subject declares he has to guess or has no preference.

6.
When all choices have been completed repeat orally
one by one and indicate code answers to the questions on opinion of service.

(11)

7.
Secure all the information called for in the
personal information card, leaving rent until last, and making an estimate of
rent where it seems preferable.

8.
Finish each set of cards before you start with a
new subject.

9.
Number each set of cards with an identical serial
number, attach them to each other by means of a clip, and sign each with your
initials.

10.
Turn in a daily report of interviews, together with
the cards.

11.
Be careful that there is no ambiguity or lack of
clearness in notations made on any card.

12.
Think about your work, and be free to offer
suggestions. Whether accepted or not, they will be carefully considered.

13.
Show uniform courtesy to all persons interviewed and
secure from them where possible two or three other names of subjects.

Comment on these instructions is unnecessary except in the case of
instruction 5. In cases in which the subject showed that he could make no or
little differentiation on the basis of relative prestige, he was not allowed to
complete a schedule. In cases in which the subject checked all but one or two of
the twenty pairs, he was urged to make a complete choice even though the
difference seemed to him very slight. His ability to make a choice in most cases
indicated that he had a certain pattern of judgment or feeling which presumably
would carry through in even the doubtful cases.

The bulk of the interviewing was carried through by Professor James W.
Errant, of the University of Oklahoma, a research assistant of the Local
Community Research Committee for 1926-27. Mr. Errant gave this work two-thirds
of his time for nine months and displayed great ingenuity and success in making
field contacts. He collected approximately thirty-eight hundred completed
schedules. During the Autumn Quarter of 1927 the work was carried on by four
graduate students: Miss Mildred

(12) Sharp, Mr. Waldo Thorpe, Mr. Reuel Hemdahl, and Mr. Samuel J. Hocking. A
few schedules were filled by an undergraduate class in state government. The
writer filled something over two hundred schedules. In general, there-fore, the
task of interviewing was performed almost exclusively by five graduate students
at the University of Chicago, and of these one collected over three-fourths of
all the schedules. The schedules were given preliminary examination either by
Professor Errant or the author, and if superficially acceptable were given a
file number. Later the various items were coded, and doubtful points which
emerged were handled by the author. Finally, when Hollerith cards were punched,
occasional errors were revealed and corrected.

At the outset the interviewer met each subject individually. Students from
University classes were chosen for the first group in order to test out the
schedule and to familiarize the interviewer with the schedules and the dangers
to be avoided. Later, subjects were taken both individually and in small groups.
Experimentation indicated that groups of ten up to twenty under controlled
conditions could be handled without difficulty. Groups over twenty offered some
trouble, as it became difficult to prevent communication; occasionally some
confusion was caused by the putting of questions, rising, or inattention.

The author presented the schedule to a South Side business men's organization
at which perhaps fifty men were present. The results were unsatisfactory, and
most of the schedules were discarded. On the other hand, a group of women of
about the same size gave fairly good results. In general, our experience showed
that while the schedules can readily be given to groups, the maximum size of the
group should not exceed twenty-five.

(13)

III. THE METHOD OF THE STUDY: THE SECOND SCHEDULE

The second schedule was supplementary to the first, and was intended in part
to check the general results secured from the main schedule, in part to secure
information which had not been derived. A word association test formed the first
part of the second schedule. A rating scale was also introduced, to secure an
idea of the relative standing of the positions with each other. Finally, a
completion test was devised to secure an expression of judgment on the relative
efficiency, honesty, and courtesy of municipal employees. The same personal data
was secured from the 690 persons who filled this schedule as from the 4,680
persons who handled the first schedule.

The form is reprinted on the following pages. It comprised a single folded
sheet.

EMPLOYMENT STUDY

Please do not turn sheet until so instructed. Follow directions
exactly.

I

WORD-ASSOCIATION TEST

INSTRUCTIONS: A list of words will be read one by one aloud. You are to write
in the blank space the first word that you think of in connection with the given
word. For example, if I read the word pencil you
might think of paper or lead or pen or write

1. 13.

2. 14.

3. 15.

4. 16.

5. 17.

6. 18.

7. 19.

8. 20.

9. 21.

10.
22.

11.
23.

12.
24.

(14)

25.
28.

26.
29.

27.
30.

II

On the following diagram you are to show your opinion of the prestige of
twenty positions, all in the employ of the city of Chicago, by placing a
cross (X) at any point on the line opposite each position. The left end
of the line represents the highest prestige, the right end the lowest.

On the following pages we are asking you to compare public and private
employees in regard to the qualities of efficiency, honesty, and
courtesy. There are nine statements for each quality. Please read these
statements and check (√) that one which you feel best represents your personal
opinion. Indicate the relative strength of your conviction on the scale at the
bottom of the page.

(15)

Chicago city employees are :

( ) invariably far more efficient
( ) almost always much more efficient
( ) on the whole more efficient
( ) probably more efficient
( ) neither more nor less efficient
( ) probably less efficient
( ) on the whole less efficient
( ) almost always less efficient
( ) invariably far less efficient

than employees of private corporations.

STRENGTH OF CONVICTION

Check (√) at some point on this line the degree of certainty of your
judgment.

The stimulus words and a specific description of the methods of giving the
test, together with its results, are presented in chapter ix; the completion
test is discussed in chapter ii.

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE SAMPLE

The experiment was designed to sound the opinion of as varied types of
Chicago's heterogeneous population as possible. We were not interested in
student opinion alone, or even primarily, but desired to secure a representative
sample of the vast range of Chicago residents. To this end a determined effort
was made to get in touch with working people in all sorts of occupations, high
and low, young and old, native and foreign born, rich and poor. We succeeded in
securing 4,680 persons to make adequate responses to the first schedule, and 690
other persons to deal with the

(17) supplementary schedule. There was very little overlapping between the
two groups, but both groups were heterogeneous and in general represented the
same range of type. The largest single group of subjects comprise those engaged
in commercial and business pursuits. We are under deep obligation to several
large utilities and business houses of Chicago for permission to present the
schedules to their employees. Students comprise a substantial proportion, but
the study is distinctly not one of student opinion. Many schedules filled by
students were secured from the "downtown" college whose constituency is drawn
from young workingmen and women. It proved difficult to secure schedules from
foreign-born women, who combined a native suspicion of the interviewer with a
fear of revealing some fact which might imperil the security of their residence
in America. On the other hand, it proved relatively easy to secure the
co-operation of women's clubs and the League of Women Voters. There was much
greater difficulty in achieving a balanced group of women than of men. With
regard to both sexes it was impossible to get a fair sample of the Gold Coast,
persons who probably have a very definite opinion on the subject, but who refuse
to admit preferences for the position of city-hall janitor as compared with the
janitor of the Wrigley Building!

The following paragraphs will state as briefly as possible the character of
the sample of 4,680 persons who handled the first schedule. The second group of
690 will not be analyzed here; it will suffice to say that it was also a varied
group with a somewhat larger proportion of women and a somewhat smaller
proportion of students.

The distribution by sex showed 2,621 males (56 per cent) and 2,059 females
(44 per cent).

The distribution by age appears in Table I, which shows

(18) a reasonably satisfactory range. The younger age groups were somewhat
overemphasized, the older somewhat in-adequate in comparison with the general
distribution of the Chicago population.

The educational groups show a concentration at the completion of high school
but otherwise a fairly satisfactory distribution. The proportion of highly
educated persons is too great and of poorly educated persons somewhat too small.
The exact distribution appears in Table II.

A summary of the occupational distribution (Table III) reveals an undue
proportion of students, of whom it may be said however that some were
night-school students who in fact were earning a livelihood. They were
instructed to enter the occupation at which they made their living but did not
always do so. A larger number of unskilled laborers would have been desirable,
but this group finds difficulty in handling such an experiment as this.

One of the very significant bases of distinction is by race and nationality.
We found that we had interviewed 2,341 persons native born with native father,
1,564 persons native born with foreign father, and 775 persons foreign born.

We asked our subjects to indicate whether they were born in the country or in
the city. This was left to their own opinion without attempting to follow the
census line of distinction, as we believed the real difference was a
psychological rather than a statistical one. The answers showed 1,313 persons
who were born in the country, and 3,335 who were born in the city, with 32 who
made no statement.

The sample may also be analyzed according to the years' residence in Cook
County. Table IV indicates the distribution.

Finally, the sample may be analyzed according to the economic status of its
members, as revealed by the payment for rent per room per month. For this
purpose we excluded all the students and housewives, together with over two
hundred who gave no satisfactory evidence on this point. The remainder were well
divided among all five groups (see Table V).

(21)

V. THE VALIDITY OF THE RESPONSES

A fundamental issue as to the validity of the present experiment concerns the
character of the expressions of opinion recorded on the two schedules. Were they
actually bona fide and accurate expressions of individual evaluations of the
prestige of public employment in Chicago, or where they in reality something
else ? Several considerations require to be dealt with.

1.
Was there deliberate misrepresentation by
subjects, who for their own purposes concealed their real views? We have no
reason to believe that such misrepresentation occurred, and we conceive no
adequate reason why it should occur. The schedules were unsigned and
confidential. The quest ions had no relation to any immediate concern and gave
no hint of any desire for reform. Immigrant women frequently refused to handle
the schedule entirely; but when the questions were answered, we believe they
were honestly answered.

2.
Were the schedules checked in a facetious or
frivolous mood? Some younger people were amused by a few of the

(22) questions but in general the attitude of the subjects was serious
enough—in some cases too serious, for all sorts of special cases, exceptions,
qualifications, and the like were produced. Some schedules were discarded for
this reason. The presence of the name of the University of Chicago on the
schedule and the business-like attitude of the chief interviewer were usually
sufficient guaranties of a proper attitude toward the study.

3.
Were the questions objective? The paired
occupations were so arranged that the city-hall position and the private
position appeared first an equal number of times, and so far as could be
ascertained there was no hint of bias on this schedule. On the second part of
the first schedule there was some opinion that the form of the question gave a
subtle lead against the city-hall job, by using such phrases as "more courteous
attention," "Are city employees more competent?" and the like. The view was
expressed that the question should have been phrased, "Are city employees as
competent as employees of private corporations?"

The writer does not personally feel the force of this view, but records it
here for the guidance of any who may desire to repeat this experiment, The
affirmative answer to the proposed alternative form merely signifies equality as
between the two types of work, and leaves no opportunity for the subject to
express a positive preference for the competence or courtesy of the city
employees.

4.
Were the cases and questions adequate? The
paired occupations and the series of questions could each have been greatly
extended. There is a sharp limit, however, to the extent of interrogation which
individuals will tolerate, and we believe that we came close to the limit. The
present schedule also exhausts the possibilities of the single Hollerith punch
card.

(23)

Within the limits of the total number, opinions will vary as to the wisdom of
the particular occupations and questions which we presented. They were selected
with the city of Chicago alone in mind. The choices made by the 4,680 subjects
revealed a considerable group of positions with regard to which opinion was
substantially neutral, which might be reduced in later studies. Those questions
with regard to which a large proportion were unable to give a positive answer
should also be carefully scrutinized with a view to elimination in any further
study. Other questions might be proposed as alternatives.

5.
To what extent were the choices of paired
occupations governed by the specific private member of each pair? That is,
were opinions substantially affected by the selection of the Western Electric
Company as the pair for the city Department of Electricity; would the
proportions of preference for the city job have been substantially different if
the Commonwealth Edison Company or the Midwest Utilities Company had been
proposed instead of the Western Electric? No evidence is at hand to answer this
question, nor do we know whether the scale turned in favor of city work iii some
cases or against it in others. The most that can be said is that given these
twenty pairs, which were selected with as much care as possible to secure
substantial parity, we arrived at certain results.

6.
Were the instructions understood and followed?
Particularly, did the subjects actually select on the basis of the relative
esteem or prestige attaching to each position? Here again is a problem on which
there is no conclusive evidence. Among the total number of 4,680 were 731
subjects who preferred without exception either all public or all private
members of the paired occupations. Among the remainder many selected all public
or private with only one

(24) or two exceptions; many others chose the private member of the pairs
except in the case of the professional positions. The character of these choices
indicates prima facie that the subject entertained positive convictions, and the
character of the answers to the fifteen questions indicates that their
convictions were related to the bases on which prestige is won or lost. The
reader can judge for himself the sufficiency of the written and oral
instructions and explanations of the terms employed. The experiment states
merely that 4,680 persons under the given conditions made the responses which
are analyzed in the following chapters; from the consistency of the internal
evidence and general agreement with observation one may assume, with what
reservations one desires, that these expressions of opinion are indicative of
attitudes toward public employment held by different categories of persons in
Chicago.

Notes

The Conditions of Municipal Employment in Chicago: A Study in Morale,
Chicago, 1926.

The content of this page is still protected by copyright
in the United States of America and can not be reproduced for any purpose
other than scholarship.

This page and related Mead Project pages constitute the personal web-site
of Dr. Lloyd Gordon Ward (retired), who is responsible for its content.
Although the Mead Project continues to be presented through the
generosity of Brock University, the contents of this page do not reflect
the opinion of Brock University. Brock University is not responsible for
its content.

Fair Use Statement:

Scholars are permitted to reproduce this material for personal use.
Instructors are permitted to reproduce this material for educational use by
their students.

Otherwise, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, for the purpose of profit or personal benefit, without written permission from the Mead Project. Permission is granted for inclusion of the electronic text of these pages, and their related images in any index that provides free access to its listed documents.